Poorly received by suppliers AND buyers. Awesome. 

I think the changes by iStock seems logical. Month over month, year over year, they have been slowly losing market share to Shutterstock. Everyone can read the quarterly filings by Shutterstock, as far as I known, Shutterstock have grown every quarter since going IPO, and probably nearly every quarter pre-IPO. This is just iStock's slow march towards mirroring Shutterstock's business model.

That's the difference between iStock and Shutterstock: reactive vs. proactive. While Shutterstock now moves forward  towards higher-priced options, iStock goes backwards to try to catch up.

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 02, 2014, 13:11

I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.

Interesting that so many people have voted your post up. I think that must be more to do with sentiment than careful analysis. Since nobody knows the outcome.

Hands up - I am iStock exclusive ! Though at this point I am completely neutral being 8 months into a completely different thing. And I always was. I am more curious than concerned about iS at this point. Though FWIW I have been personally around photo agencies since 1989 - and the friends and family since the 60s. And iStock is just a bit of what Getty does and how it works.

If I was an SS stock holder; as an investor I would be worried about them being seriously under diversified. What else do they actually do which justifies their price in a market for cheap pictures which is moving towards free.

Maybe it wasn't champagne corks you heard

True, nobody knows the outcome. But unless this new pricing structure miraculously pulls in a lot more sales, I foresee my earnings dropping like a stone. All my 12, 15 and 20-credit vectors will now sell for five credits. Their subs cannabilized my regular sales, so my earnings dropped like a stone when they were introduced. So I foresee my earnings dropping for the second time this year. I hope that's not the case, but I strongly suspect it will be.

The reason I don't think it will pull in more sales is because they continually rejigger the site, the credits, the levels, the searches, rename everything, etc. if I were a buyer I'd be so frustrated with the constant changes I'd avoid them.

I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 02, 2014, 06:42

Quote from: tickstock on September 01, 2014, 19:14

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 01, 2014, 19:04

I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

Quote from: shudderstok on September 01, 2014, 10:26

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.

I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen.  I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum.  I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are.  Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things.  As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes.

The question is, why should people do it?

Subs opened up new markets, IMO. People who before hadn't thought of buying stock or who couldn't afford stock now saw it as a viable option. Or people who bought a couple of images a month now saw an opportunity to offer clients more choices by subscribing and having access to hundreds of unwatermarked images to present (which we get paid for).

The end of subs means the end of that market, which for many of us is our main market. Eliminating subs won't convince that market to pay more.

You may want to eliminate subs because it's good for you personally, but the folks who visit Microstock Group probably aren't your best target audience for that idea. Macrostock Group, on the other hand...

Multi billion dollar companies are using stock.  I bet one cent images with all the rights of an EL would open the market even more, opening the market doesn't necessarily mean it's better for us.  Look at DPC, lots of people here are against them but 10 dollars for 10 images probably opens up the market a lot more than a $200/month subscription, is that good for us?  Like I said right now most everyone is doing pretty well at Shutterstock, earnings are steady or rising for most contributors and nothing is going to change unless SS starts to do poorly.

The reason people are upset about DPC is that it offers volume discounts without the volume sales. Subs let you earn money by selling a lot of images, and non-subs let you earn money by selling fewer images for more money, as you know.

Multi-million-dollar companies do use stock, and they pay for non subs. That's why Shutterstock now offers other buying options, and why we get higher commissions from those buyers. (I make more for those sales on SS than I do on iS.)

My Shutterstock earnings dropped substantially this summer, but not as much as my iStock earnings dropped after they introduced subs. Usually SS earns me about 3x what iS does, but in August it was 5x as much.

I think it's annoying to read a thread only to realize it's from 5 years ago.

I don't see what's great about free embedded images either. Just another Getty, only unproven.

and here's the irony.. ie. smaller ad agencies buying subs.
they make lots of money ,these penny-pinchers , paying peanuts to us.
i am sure they are not creating ads from our images and earning 33-38 cts or even $28 per ad.

I've worked at ad agencies big and small, from multinational conglomerates with hundreds of thousands of employees to small mom and pop shops with 50 or so employees. None used subs. They charge their clients for images...they don't pay for the images themselves. That's why Shutterstock has introduced relatively new buying options...they're targeting the ad agencies who buy images one at a time.

if tomorrow, Oringer says SS will no longer do subs, and the cheapest image will earn contributors a minimum of $2, or whatever that is not 33 cts.
do u think the clients will run away to elsewhere

Yes. I believe they would. Why not? Everyone else offers subs now.

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 22, 2014, 09:26

How 'bout the OP makes a constructive suggestion?

Depends on the problem we're talking about.
A solution to oversupply could be something like Stocksy.
A solution to subs could be for contributors to join together and only supply sites that don't have subs or sites that have better pricing for subs.  A petition with the threat of taking down images or stopping uploading unless royalties are raised is another possibility.
A solution to general problems could be a union.
A solution for some problems like the DPC deal for example could be to compile an email list to alert contributors of the change.  Some of these deals and programs are probably unknown to a majority of contributors.
There are lots of possibilities but one that I do not think will get us anywhere is waiting for agencies to have a change of heart on their own.

Well, Stocksy already exists. For the few who can get in, that's a good thing. For the rest of us, not so much. Same with Creative Market for illustrators.

On subs I disagree with you, because subs opened up a new market for sellers, targeting people who couldn't afford stock images previously. And for many of us subs make up a substantial portion of our income. If you don't want your images sold as subs, then absolutely don't upload to the agencies who offer them. But for many of us that's not an option right now. Asking for a royalties raise, absolutely, yes.

A union's a good idea, but not sure how that would work with an international membership.

Compiling an email list for actions against things like DPC, yes.

Overall, I think "supporting" "good agencies" (those who offer a better royalty rate) probably won't work, because the largest agencies are the best at marketing, and no amount of images or support from contributors will make an agency better at marketing. That has to come from within the corporate structure.

Starving agencies of images may or may not work. One place in particular has 66,000 contributors...it would take an awful lot of people to starve them of anything. But for a nasty startup like DPC, that can absolutely work.

Using Shutterstock images in Facebook ads is free, though we still get paid for the usage.

guys, i'm not referring to defamation but about publishing private emails in public, that's a breach of trust and totally unprofessional and also illegal in some EU countries, no idea about the US but i don't think you're allowed to post private emails, private images, etc, especially about your ex girlfriend or whatever, let alone confidential business stuff of your employer.

They're not his employer. And they weren't even offering him employment. They asked him to enter a contest, and even if he won, he wouldn't be paid for his work.

if i ever posted some internal emails when i was working in a corporate job i would get fired on the spot, sued, and rightfully so.

Different situation. These were not internal emails. Did you read the article?

this guy has all my support regarding his crusade against cheapskate clients but i wonder if he'll lose customers doing so, who will trust him knowing he could defame you in public as he did in the past ?
 

He didn't defame anyone. Don't want to be outed? Offer to pay him fairly.

i mean, even the micro agencies would delete our accounts if we publish some confidential information we received via private emails with their drones.

now he's praised as a hero by fellow designers but about his clients ? if i was a client i would scared dealing with people that can't control his emotions and need to vent in public giving me a bad image and making me lose face.

I don't think you read the article.